MEASURING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LESSONS FROM THE

BUNDLES APPROACH
Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge
Working Paper No. 438

by

Gerhard Schnyder
Kings College
London
Email: gerhard.schnyder@kcl.ac.uk

December 2012

This working paper forms part of the CBR research programme on Corporate
Governance

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2220616

Abstract
This paper reviews recent studies that analyse and criticise existing academic
and commercial corporate governance (CG) indices. Most of these rating the
ratings papers reach the conclusion that encompassing composite measures of
CG are ineffective and suggest therefore to return to simpler measures. This
paper draws on the configurational- or bundles approach to CG and argues
that, while the criticisms made by the rating the ratings papers are justified,
their recommendations are misguided. Based on four central insights derived
from the bundles approach, the paper shows that reverting to simpler measures
of firm-level CG practices is a step in the wrong direction, in that it eliminates
information about interactions between different corporate governance
mechanisms. This is particularly consequential for comparative CG research
that aims to identify differences in country-specific CG systems. Alternative
solutions are developed to improve corporate governance measures, which take
into account insights from the bundles approach.

Keywords: corporate governance; bundles; corporate governance ratings

JEL Codes: G32, G34, P51

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Howard Gospel, and participants at

London Centre for Corporate Governance and Ethics (LCCGE) monthly
seminar and the SOAS, University of London, Department of Finance and
Management seminar for most helpful comments on a previous version of this
paper. The research leading to these results has received funding from the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) under grant agreement number
RES-061-25-0518 (Law & Agency project).

Further information about the Centre for Business Research can be found at the
following address: www.cbr.cam.ac.uk

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2220616

1. Introduction
One of the major challenges of corporate governance (CG) research since its
inception has been the definition of measures of good corporate governance,
i.e. of corporate governance mechanisms that lead to financial efficiency, social
legitimacy or more generally goal attainment (cf. Judge 2010 for the two
former, Aguilera et al. 2008 for the latter).1 In order to analyse the impact that
CG has on different measures of corporate performance, academics and
commercial providers have either used individual variables (such as board
independence and ownership structure) or have attempted to construct
composite measures of corporate governance practices. Despite considerable
efforts and despite considerable sophistication of measures and methods, the
results so far are surprisingly ambiguous and contradictory (Bhaghat et al.
2008). In particular, it has proven very difficult to show that even sophisticated
professional measures of the quality of a companys corporate governance
system produced by different commercial providers are indeed able to predict
future performance.
This situation has led to a series of studies that review the existing rating
schemes and corporate governance indices (Bebchuk et al. 2009, Bhagat et al.
2008, Brown & Caylor 2006, Daines, Gow and Larcker 2010, Renders et al.
2010). The main finding of these rating the ratings papers is that composite
measures of CG practices are ineffective in so far as they do not predict
performance outcomes better than single measures. More worryingly, different
measures from different providers that purport to measure the same underlying
phenomenon (i.e. the quality of corporate governance) are only weakly
correlated with each other.
Some authors explain the weak evidence for a link between CG and
performance as a limitation of the methods used (cf. Renders et al. 2010).
Others, however, focus on a more fundamental problem regarding measurement
errors and index construction. Two criticisms can be distinguished within the
latter group: firstly, there is a lack of theoretical justifications for the
composition of these indicators (what to include and what not); secondly, a
convincing method or a theory to determine the weighting of different variables
included in the index is lacking.
This paper reviews the existing rating the ratings and related papers and
argues that while methodological efforts and innovations are laudable, they will
remain pointless as long as these new methodological approaches are applied to
fundamentally flawed measurements.2 Indeed, the weak correlation among
different ratings indicates that the problem is a fundamental one of defining and
measuring good governance, rather than a problem that can be solved
1

downstream, i.e. at the stage of data analysis (cf. Larcker et al. 2007). Rather
than further seeking to improve statistical methods, the focus should shift
towards the upstream problem of how we conceptualise and measure CG in
the first place (cf. Daines et al. 2010: 441).
One common suggestion derived from the observed limitations of composite
CG indices is to return to simpler measures of corporate governance in order to
avoid the problems associated with measurement errors and index construction
(Bhagat et al. 2008; Bebchuk et al. 2009).
Yet, this suggestion seems problematic in view of recent developments in the
CG literature. Different recent contributions (Aguilera et al. 2012 and 2008,
Ward et al. 2009) show that different CG mechanisms may appear ineffective if
investigated individually, but may have an important impact on outcomes in
combination with other CG mechanisms. Also, certain firm-level CG
mechanisms may have an impact on outcomes only in a given environment, i.e.
in combination with certain institutional factors (Kogut 2012, Aguilera et al.
2008, Filatotchev 2008). This has led to an increased attention to combinations-,
or bundles of corporate governance practices at the firm level and how they
may relate to different organisation-level and contextual contingencies. Based
on these insights, the claim that simpler measure of corporate governance at
firm level should be used appears like a step in the wrong direction. Even if a
single variable may strengthen the predictive power of a model, it seems likely
that using such a simple measure for the complex construct of corporate
governance will lead us to miss potentially important interactions between CG
mechanisms. This shortcoming is particularly important in comparative
research, because it leads us to neglect important functionally equivalent CG
mechanisms across countries and to overlook contextual contingencies.
Therefore, rather than reverting to simpler or even univariate measures of CG,
this paper constitutes an attempt to integrate insights from the bundles
approach to the question of index construction for comparative CG research.
Based on this discussion, an alternative approach to index construction is
developed.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the recent literature
criticising widely-used CG ratings and indices. Next I present recent insights
from the bundles approach to corporate governance. Section four provides
suggestions regarding the development of more meaningful comparative
measures of firm-level CG. Conclusions are drawn in the final section.

2. The Rating the Ratings Literature

It has become increasingly common in financial economics research to use
commercially provided corporate governance ratings to measure the quality of
a given companies CG (Bebchuk & Hamdani 2009). The great appeal of such
commercial ratings is that they are provided by professionals who have better
access to firms and more resources than the average academic researcher. Yet,
the different commercial indices do not generate consistent or robust results
when used in studies investigating the link between the quality of CG and firm
performance or valuation. Indeed, most of these ratings do a rather poor job in
predicting future performance (Daines et al. 2010). This has raised increasing
scepticism among scholars and brought the ratings under scrutiny. There is an
emergent literature assess the quality of these methodologies or as one paper
fittingly puts it that rates the ratings (Daines et al. 2010).
Different rating the ratings papers tackle the problem in different ways, look at
different ratings and reach different conclusions. However, two common
points can be distinguished. Firstly, existing ratings are criticised for using too
many variables rather than focusing on the variables that really matter (what
Bebchuck et al. 2009 have called the kitchen-sink-approach to index
construction). Secondly, all recent reviews draw attention to the difficulty of
deciding which variables to include and how to weigh them. The critics find that
most existing ratings either arbitrarily sum up many dimensions into one
measure (cf. e.g. Daines et al. 2010: 441 who speak of check-and-sum
measures used by most academics) or use sophisticated but completely opaque
algorithms. Indeed, there is a lack of theoretical justification of the composition
of indicators and the weighting of different variables.
In this section, after briefly presenting the most important findings of several
rating the ratings papers, I discuss both problems in some detail.
Whats wrong with the ratings?
The most extensive and detailed review of existing CG ratings by Daines et al.
(2010) compares four different methodologies measuring the quality of firmlevel CG arrangements; namely, the Corporate Governance Quotient (CGQ)
developed by RiskMetrics/ISS, the GMI metric produced by
GovernanceMetrics International, the rating used by The Corporate Library
(TCL), and the Accounting & Governance Risk (AGR) score developed by
Audit Integrity (Daines et al. 2010: 440).3
Their statistical analyses show that these widely-used commercial governance
ratings do not predict different measures of corporate performance in any
3

reliable way. For all dependent variables (DVs) that they use (accounting
restatements, shareholder litigation, operating performance, stock returns and
cost of debt) the predictive power of the four CG metrics are weak with some of
them even showing negative correlations, i.e. worse corporate governance
leads to better performance. 4 The most reliable measure appears to be the AGR,
which tellingly is different from the other ratings in that it is exclusively
based on accounting practices. It measures the quality of a firms accounting
practices, which is in some respects an output of its corporate governance
system, not a direct measure of it (Daines et al. 2010: 443).
Bhagat et al. (2008: 1853ff), in another rating the ratings paper, compare the
quality of different common CG measures by testing whether poor performance
leads to more CEO turnover in well governed firms. They find support for this
idea if CG is measured as the percentage of non-executive directors (NEDs) or
as the median dollar value of independent directors stockholdings. They also
investigate two widely-used academic measures, i.e. the G-Index developed by
Gompers et al. (2003) and Bebchuk et al.s (2009) E-Index (discussed in detail
below) and find support for the relationship between poor performance and
CEO turnover in well-governed firms. The most sophisticated measure they
use The Corporate Library measure , on the other hand, does not produce any
significant relationship. This leads them to conclude that simpler measure
outperform more complex ones.
These findings regarding the weak link between CG ratings and firm
performance is confirmed by the fact that a large number of studies, using
various measures and DVs, produce contradictory results. It goes beyond the
scope of this paper to review the financial economics literature that uses these
indicators to investigate the link between CG and performance (see Renders et
al. 2010 in particular for an overview of some). In this paper, I focus only on
studies which have explicitly the quality of CG rating methodologies as their
main topic, which I label the rating the ratings literature.
Different explanations exist for the absence of a robust empirical link between
corporate governance ratings and (future) performance. Thus, it might be that
different combinations of mechanisms are optimal for different firms and firms
chose what is optimal in their case. Alternatively, it is suggested that the
statistical methods used are not sophisticated enough (Daines et al. 2010: 440;
Renders et al. 2010: 87).
Contrary to what some authors suggest sometimes implicitly the absence of
predictive power of CG ratings regarding future performance does not
automatically imply that there is something wrong with the ratings. Indeed, it
might be that the theory that there is a link between CG and firm performance is
4

incorrect. However, Daines et al. (2010) provide evidence that there is indeed
something wrong with the ratings. They show that all but two ratings are very
weakly correlated, i.e. they assess the quality of the same firms corporate
governance system very differently. Thus, GMI and CGQ have a Pearson
correlation of .484 and a spearman correlation of .480, but all other pairs are
nearly uncorrelated (Daines et al. 2010: 444). Similarly, Brown and Caylor
(2006: footnote (FN) 3) find that their own governance measure (Gov-Score),
which is based on ISSs CGQ, only weakly correlates with Gompers et al.s
(2003) G-Index (Pearson correlation -.09 and Spearman -.10).5 In other words,
different methodologies seem to measure rather different things. This is a
surprising finding given that all four ratings claim to measure the same
underlying phenomenon, i.e. the quality of corporate governance.
Here, Daines et al. (2010: 46) suggest that the most likely explanation is simply
that corporate governance metrics are subject to serious measurement errors.
Two important sources of such errors, which are identified by virtually all
reviewing the reviews papers, are the kitchen-sink problem, whereby any
potentially relevant CG item is thrown into the index, and the tick-and-sum
problem, whereby the weighting (or absence thereof) of different variables of
the index are not theoretically justified. I now turn to discuss both problems in
turn.
The kitchen-sink problem
The weaknesses of CG indices are often attributed to their complexity and
unselective nature. Among academics, Gompers, Ishii & Metrick (GIM) (2003)
were among the first ones to suggest a measure for the quality of CG
governance based on a composite index. Their management entrenchment
index (the G-Index) used the Investor Responsibility Research Centre (IRRC)
data on anti-takeover provisions in companies charters (17 items in total) as
well as several other shareholder-relevant provisions. The indicator contains a
total of 24 items with higher scores indicating stronger management
entrenchment. It is hence hypothesised to correlate with worse performance.
They find support for this hypothesis in so far as the G-Index is significantly
related to stock returns and Tobins Q (but not to accounting performance).
Yet, Bebchuk, Cohen & Ferrel (BCF) (2009: 823) have criticised GIM and
cautioned against the kitchen sink approach of building ever-larger indexes of
governance measures. On the same grounds, they criticise the Institutional
Shareholder Services (ISS) Corporate Governance Quotient (CGQ), which
uses 61 variables and the Governance Metric International (GMI) measure that
uses more than 600 items.

BCFs re-analysis the G-index shows that only six of the 24 variables really
matter for firm valuation (measured as Tobins Q) and stockholder returns.
They group these variables in a new index called entrenchment index or Eindex.6 Their assessment of which ones of GIMs 24 variables matter is based
on a mix of criteria. Indeed, BCF (2009: 784) state that they have selected those
variables that are most strongly contested by institutional investors, because of
their negative impact on takeovers. The assessment of the contested nature of
these variables was confirmed by six expert interviews. Moreover, four of the
six are theoretically justified, because they constitute limitations on
shareholders voting power, which is according to BCF the shareholders
primary power. The E-index makes hence an important step in the right
direction by justifying at least a part of the variables included based on a
theoretical argument, i.e. an assumed hierarchy of shareholder rights, with
voting rights being considered more important than other rights (such as
presumably informational rights). Other than the reference to the importance
of voting rights there is no theoretical justification of the selection. At least one
of the six variables may have an ambiguous effect on shareholders wealth and
on entrenchment: Golden parachutes may facilitate takeovers rather than
prevent them (Bhagat et al. 2008:1821). The theoretical foundation for the
choices seems hence partial (what justifies the inclusion of two variables that
are not related to voting rights?) and one is hard pressed to avoid the conclusion
that the choice is ultimately based on what explains best the expected outcome.
The authors acknowledge that [t]o confirm that focusing on these provisions is
plausible, we also performed our own analysis of their consequences (Bebchuk
et al. 2009: 784). Indeed, the ultimate justification of the E-index is that it
produces unambiguous results, while the remaining G-index variables
(compiled in what they term the O-index) do not (Bebchuk et al. 2009: 822).
The six variables retained for the E-index are the ones - and indeed the only
ones of the 24 items of the G-index that are statistically significant when
regressed on Tobins Q and shareholder returns (cf. Bhagat et al. 2008: 1822).
Cremers and Nair (2005) were the first to explicitly criticise the composition of
the G- and E-Indices based on theoretical, rather than empirical grounds. They
observed that both the E- and the G-indices are almost exclusively composed of
variables pertaining to the ease with which a company can be taken over. They
suggest that any measure of CG needs to include besides this external
dimension of CG measures of the internal governance structure. Striving for
parsimony, Cremers and Nair (2005) reduce the E-index further and use only 3
anti-takeover variables (namely, staggered boards, restrictions of
shareholders ability to call a special meeting or to act by written consent and
blank check preferred stock). However, they add one variable shareholder
activism as a proxy for internal corporate governance mechanisms. Cremers
6

and Nair (2005) show that these four variables drive the association between
CG and performance.
Similarly, Brown and Caylor (2006) construct an indicator based on the idea
that indices should be as small as possible, but that they should still include
more than takeover defences.7 Contrary to GIM, BCF and Cremers and Nair
who all use IRRC data, Brown and Caylor (2006) use ISS data which contains
more than 60 items that relate not only to a companys external, but also to its
internal governance (board structure, compensation schemes etc.). They find
that compensation provisions and BoD characteristics matter more than antitakeover provisions. This observation is based on different statistical procedures
one of which is used by BCF as well that allow it to distinguish the variables
from the ISS data that actually drive the link with performance. They find that
seven variables matter and group them together in the so-called Gov-7 index.
Bhaghat et al. (2008) too use an empiricist approach to investigate what CG
variables really matter. However, Bhagat et al. (2008) go a step further than the
studies reviewed so far. Based on simultaneous equations systems, they find
three significant determinants of operating performance (Bhaghat 2008: 18481850): the separation of the CEO and Board Chairman role; the level of
independence of the BoD8; the strongest relationship they find relates to the
dollar value of the independent directors median shareholdings.
They too criticise existing approaches and CG indices, notably on grounds of
what they call two factually incorrect assumptions on which such indices are
based (Bhagat et al. 2008: 1808): firstly, that good governance components do
not vary across firms; secondly, that they are always complements and never
substitutes. They acknowledge hence the contextuality of CG bundles.
However, based on this analysis, they reach the rather radical conclusion that
composite measures are useless and that the enterprise of constructing reliable
composite measure should be abandoned. Instead of using an index, a single
variable should be used (Bhaghat et al. 2008: 1827).9 They see three distinct
advantages of such an approach (Bhaghat et al. 2008: 1833). First, using just
one variable reduces the probability of measurement errors (see a contrario
Larcker et al. 2007). Second, it constitutes a way around the critical problem of
weighting different items. Third, it avoids the thorny question of interaction
effects between different CG mechanisms (are they substitutes or
complements?). Avoiding the two latter problems is crucial according to them,
because we lack a theoretical model that would allow us to understand the
interaction between CG mechanisms (Bhaghat et al. 2008: 1834-5).
Besides striving for parsimony, these studies have in common that they rely on
a empirics-driven approach to the question of what should be included in an
index. In other words, while these are certainly positive theories in that they are
7

fully grounded in empirical evidence and fulfil criteria of scientific rigor (such
as falsifiability) (Donaldson 2012), their value as causal theories is limited.
Reducing the number of variables included in an indicator may increase
predictive power and avoid certain difficult choices that the construction of
more complex measures would force us to make. However, the pragmatic
approach is hardly satisfying from a theoretical standpoint. In particular,
oftentimes the reason why a given variable matters for a given outcome remains
obscure and theoretically unfounded. For instance, Bhagat et al.s (2008)
favourite measure seems plausible in that directors who have considerable
personal wealth tied to the companys fortunes will have incentives to monitor
managers closely. However, stating that directors want to monitor managers
does not explain why we should expect these directors to be able to achieve
efficient monitoring. Certain factors may indeed run counter their incentive
and/or ability to monitor managers effectively: they might not be truly
independent from the CEO, the CEO may also hold the positions of chairman of
the board and hence dominate the board, despite the BoD members inherent
interest in monitoring the CEO etc. Therefore, it would seem that focusing on
one single aspect of CG to predict outcomes may work in practice, but clearly
many important questions such as what corporate governance mechanisms
need to be present for directors to be able effectively to monitor CEOs?
remain unanswered and unanswerable.
In the worst case, such a pragmatic and empiricist approach leads to tautological
reasoning. Because CG is not theoretically conceptualised, but measured as an
empirically constructed set of practices that is defined by their positive impact
on performance, using such measures to answer the research question does CG
matter for firm performance? becomes tautological. 10 To be sure, if the only
goal is to predict future performance, then such a procedure may still be helpful.
Since Friedmans (1966[1953]) famous essay, the predictive power of a theory
has indeed oftentimes been taken as a reflection of its causal power without the
causal link between variables actually being explained. Consequently, all too
often, scholars use empirics merely to circumvent a theoretical void, failing thus
to contribute to the advancement of causal corporate governance theory.
Moreover, while the more parsimonious indicators may be empirically well
founded in that they drive performance they are statistically problematic due
to the pragmatic approach to index construction. Thus, the six variables of
BCFs (2005) E-index have only relatively low correlations (between 0.1 and
0.31). They argue however that this shows that each variable contributes
potentially a new aspect of corporate governance to the index. Similarly,
Bhaghat et al. (2008) observe that their privileged individual predictor of
performance (median outside director ownership) is only weakly correlated with
the Gompers et al. (2003) G-index. They suggest that a combined measure may
8

be the most powerful predictor of performance, because the two do not measure
the same dimensions (Bhaghat et al. 2008: 1851). This suggestion reflects the
dominant Friedmanian idea of the primacy of the predictive power of a model
over identifying, explaining and understanding causal links between different
CG mechanisms. However, methodologically, the combination of uncorrelated
variables into a single construct is highly questionable. Indeed, from a
methodological standpoint a main condition for a valid index is that the
variables included measure the same underlying factor and index construction
has been suggested in cases where the corporate governance variables present
high levels of multicollinearity (Rediker & Seth 1995: 98). One general
guideline is to include only variables with a Cronbachs alpha of at least 70%
(Cortina 1993).11
Besides the methodological problems with this approach, combining two
uncorrelated measures of CG (the G-index and director stock ownership), as
suggested by Bhagat et al. 2008, makes it virtually impossible to give the
construct any meaningful interpretation. If the G-index and the director
ownership variable are not correlated, how can we take them to measure the
same underlying construct, which is corporate governance?
Hence, attempts to reduce the number of variables by identifying which ones
matter most, have an important shortcoming, i.e. they do not provide any
theoretical insights into why certain variables matter for performance and others
not.
The check-and-sum problem
The problem of a lack of theory that could guide us in our choices regarding
what to include in an index and what not, is even more important regarding the
weighting of different variables once they are included. The above mentioned
papers by Bebchuk et al. (2009) and Brown and Caylor (2006) attempt to solve
the kitchen-sink problem by constructing indicators of the quality of corporate
governance that only contain relevant variables. However, they do not address
the second problem according to which corporate governance indices are
problematic (some say indeed nave, cf. Larcker et al. 2007: 964), because
they simply sum up different dimensions of corporate governance without any
theoretical justification of the equal weighting of each variable. Bhaghat et al.s
(2008) more radical solution, on the other hand, avoids the problem altogether
by suggesting the use of a single variable. Yet, this solution avoids the problem
rather than solving it.
There are few references to explicit weightings of different CG mechanisms
based on any conceptual or theoretical arguments. As mentioned above,
9

Bebchuk et al. (2009) consider voting rights to be more important CG

mechanism than other mechanisms, because they are conceptualised as the most
fundamental shareholder rights. Bhaghat et al. (2008: 1833), on the other hand,
argue that the board of directors is the most important CG mechanism, because
[c]orporate law provides the board of directors with the authority to make, or at
least ratify, all important firm decisions []. Brown and Caylor (2006), based
on empirical analysis, suggest that BoD and compensation provisions what
they call internal mechanisms matter more than anti-takeover provisions.
Indeed, five of the seven variables they indentify to drive the link between CG
and performance are internal mechanisms, only two are anti-takeover
provisions. There is hence no agreement in the literature on which mechanisms
matter more than others (and should hence be weighted more).
Weighting is still taking place, but it is often implicit. Indeed even if all
variables included in the indicator are given similar weight, weighting may still
occur, because different dimensions of CG, such as anti-takeover mechanisms,
board structure, or disclosure, are measured through unequal numbers of
variables. Thus, an indicator may contain more items measuring anti-takeover
provisions than variables measuring the structure and nature of the board of
directors. This would imply that anti-takeover provisions are given more
weight. Indeed, Bhaghat et al. (2008) observe that academic indicators tend to
weight takeover defences more strongly than do the commercial datasets. This
is particularly the case of the widely-used G-Index, which is practically an antitakeover index (Brown & Caylor 2006). Oftentimes, these weightings are not
explicit or consciously chosen, but the result of data availability.
It has been argued that the reasons for this situation are 1) academics lack the
necessary expertise 2) weighting may raise suspicions regarding arbitrary
weighting to improve results (Bhaghat et al. 2008: 1826; cf. Daines et al. 2010).
A more fundamental reason however, is that there is no formal theory available
that would allow researchers to define weightings on theoretical grounds
(Larcker et al. 2007: 965).12
Commercial providers such as ISS and GMI, on the other hand, apply
sophisticated quantitative algorithms or expert judgement in order to
determine the right weighting of CG items (cf. Bhagat et al. 2008: 1825). These
algorithms are considered professional secrets by the index providers. One
obvious drawback for academic research is therefore that the weightings are not
replicable for academics. Moreover, despite these sophisticated algorithms,
which for instance in the case of ISS aim explicitly at increasing the weight of
variables that matter most for performance, they still do not correlate with
performance (Daines et al. 2010). Hence, the weighting of variables included in
10

CG measures constitutes an important unsolved issue in the literature and

among practitioners.
The next section presents the bundles approach as a theory that may allow us
to develop a theoretically informed definition of what CG mechanisms matter
theoretically in different context.

3. The Bundles Approach to CG

From the literature review above, it emerges that using simpler measures of CG
has become the main solution to the problems associated with measuring firmlevel CG. However, according to Larcker et al. (2007: 964), such an approach is
problematic for two reasons. Firstly, single measures create a risk of substantial
measurement errors. Secondly, the focus on one single or a limited number of
measures to capture the complex construct of CG creates very substantial risks
of correlated omitted variables bias. In this section, I argue that beyond these
methodological reasons, the use of simpler measures is not desirable for
theoretical reasons either. Indeed, using a limited number of measures for
corporate governance will lead researchers to eliminate by design any possible
interaction effects among CG mechanisms. Yet, recent research, adopting a
configurational or bundles perspective, has precisely evolved in the direction
of taking such interaction effects seriously (Aguilera et al. 2012; Fiss 2007).
The problem will be aggravated in comparative CG research, because different
institutional contexts may make certain mechanisms irrelevant and privilege
other, functionally equivalent ones. Therefore, rather than reverting to simpler
measures, the insights of recent scholarship in CG should inform the
development of more sophisticated composite measures of firm-level corporate
governance.
Schematically, the bundles approach can be summarised in four central claims
or insights: the configurational claim, the equifinality claim, the
contingency claim, and the degrees of implementation claim. I will discuss
these four claims in turn.
The most fundamental idea of the bundles approach is that firm-level corporate
governance mechanisms may not matter individually, but develop their effects
in combination with other mechanisms (Aguilera et al. 2012 and 2008, Ward et
al. 2009, Rediker & Seth 1995, Westphal & Zajac 1994). As an example, while
it may have proven difficult in empirical studies to show that the number of
independent board members has an impact on financial performance (Hermalin
& Weisbach 1991; Bhagat & Black 2002), this may be due to the fact that board
independence is an effective CG mechanism only in combination with other CG
11

dimensions. Thus, independent boards may work effectively only in the

presence of a large blockholder or in combination with the use of incentive pay
for managers. The realisation that interactions between CG mechanisms are
crucial arguably constitutes one of the most important insights in corporate
governance research in recent years (cf. Aguilera et al. 2012). This fundamental
insight could be termed the configurational claim of the bundles approach.
The idea that bundles of CG practices may be more relevant units of analysis
than individual practices is partly based on empirical observation. However,
early on different scholars have discussed in theoretical terms the question of
complementarities narrowly defined as the presence of one
mechanism/practice increasing the marginal return of the other (cf. Milgrom &
Roberts 1990, 1995, Aoki 2001).13 Different empirical studies find evidence for
such complementarities among different CG mechanisms. Thus, Rutherford and
Buchholtz (2007) and Rutherford, Buchholtz and Brown (2007) find that
monitoring by BoDs and incentive structures are complementary: when boards
are strong and independent, incentive systems are more effective. Cremers and
Nair (2005) find that the absence of takeover defences leads to abnormal returns
only in cases where at the same time there is an active blockholder. This
indicates that good external governance (exposure to hostile takeover threat)
leads to good outcomes only if a complementary internal element of good
governance (shareholder activism) is present at the same time.
Other scholars find relationships of substitutability. One of the first analyses of
CG bundles by Rediker and Seth (1995) who coined the term bundles of
CG mechanisms investigated three practices: monitoring by the board of
directors, monitoring by external shareholders, and managerial share ownership.
They found [] strong substitution effects between monitoring by outside
directors vs. monitoring by large shareholders, incentive effects of managerial
share ownership, and mutual monitoring by inside directors (Rediker & Seth
1995: 97-8). For instance, companies with a large external blockholder use
fewer incentives for managers than companies with dispersed ownership
(similarly Zajac and Westphal 1994; Tosi et al. 1997). Gillan et al. (2006) find
that US companies with more independent boards have more anti-takeover
provisions, while companies with fewer independent directors tend to have
fewer anti-takeover provisions, suggesting a substitution effect between board
monitoring and the market for corporate control.
The finding of substitution effects hints at the second claim of the bundles
approach, which is that different bundles may be functionally equivalent in
that they lead to similar outcomes (equifinality claim). Indeed, scholars working
from a bundles perspective have observed that different combinations of CG
mechanisms may prove equally effective (cf. Aguilera et al. 2012). To give a
simple example: effective monitoring of management may be achieved through
12

independent boards, the threat of hostile takeovers, and incentive pay, in

combination with high levels of disclosure and a dispersed ownership structure
(the Anglo-Saxon system) or through monitoring by large shareholders in a
context of low levels of transparency and without the threat of hostile takeover
(the insider- or blockholder-system).
A third insight from the bundles approach is that the nature of the interaction
between CG mechanisms and the type of bundles we observe may be contingent
on context, both firm-level (Ward et al. 2009) and environmental (Filatochev
2008). Indeed, different configurations of CG mechanisms may lead to similarly
effective outcomes, because a given environment or different organisational
reality requires specific solutions to specific problems (cf. Filatochev 2008,
Aguilera et al. 2008). This could be termed the contingency claim of the
bundles approach.
In comparative corporate governance, it is widely accepted that national CG
systems differ according to factors pertaining to the companys external
environment (Aguilera & Jackson 2010). The nature of the national regulatory
framework is an often-quoted explanation for the difference between outsiderand insider-CG systems (La Porta et al. 1998). Other explanations include
culture, politics (Gourevitch & Shinn 2005), and history (Roe 1994). Hence,
such theories rely implicitly on the environmental contingency of corporate
governance arrangements.
Beyond external determinants of CG bundles, recent studies have suggested that
CG choices may be endogenous to individual firms (Larcker et al. 2007;
Renders et al. 2010). Such organization-level contingencies imply that the
effectiveness of combinations of corporate governance mechanisms may depend
on specific characteristics of a firm. Thus, the type of CG bundles that
characterise a given firm may depend on its industry (Bhagat et al. 2007: 60),
the stage in its life-cycle (start up firms may require different bundles than
mature companies Filatotchev&Wright 2008), its profitability (Ward et al.
2009), its ownership structure (Bebchuk & Hamdani 2009), or more generally
efficiency and risk (Westphal & Zajac 1994).
To give but one example, Ward et al. (2009) find that the nature of the
relationship between board monitoring and incentive pay may depend on firmlevel factors. They argue that in well-performing firms the two are substitutes:
the BoD can choose to monitor less by granting more incentive pay to
executives. Yet, in poorly performing firms, the two may be complements, in
particular if there is an external institutional shareholder putting pressure on the
firm (Ward et al. 2009: 653). Finally, in companies with extremely poor
performance, i.e. those that are on the verge of bankruptcy, the two mechanisms
13

may be completely decoupled as the BoDs monitoring capacity declines,

among other factors, because non-executive directors leave and are not replaced
and CEOs tend to entrench themselves. In other words, in such extreme
situations the bundles may unbundle (Ward et al. 2009: 655).
Also, Bebchuk and Hamdani (2009) argue that a companys ownership structure
is an important source of organisational contingency of CG (also Hoi and Robin
2010). They analyse differences in the effect of CG mechanisms in firms with
and without a controlling shareholder and show that the functioning of different
CG mechanisms is indeed contingent on ownership structures. For instance,
supermajority requirements for changes to the corporate charter or for the
approval of mergers and acquisitions have a fundamentally different effect on
minorities in the presence or absence of a controlling shareholder. RiskMetrics
code the presence of a supermajority requirement negatively, i.e. as reducing
shareholder rights. However, Bebchuk and Hamdani (2009: 1297) argue that
this is the case only in companies with dispersed ownership, where
supermajority requirements can isolate mangers from shareholder influence. In
companies with a large blockholder, supermajority requirements may be an
important protection of minorities against the blockholder. In this case, they
should hence be coded positively as protecting minority rights. As a result of
this and other contingencies of CG mechanisms on ownership structure, they
conclude that it is impossible to create an index applying to both types of firms.
To these two important contingencies environmental and organisational a
third one can be added, i.e. temporal contingencies. Indeed, in longitudinal
studies, an important factor is that the nature of bundles and interactions
between CG mechanisms may change over time. Partly this effect may work
through environmental contingencies (laws change over time). Partly, however,
this change may be due to changing behaviours of actors without any
measureable environmental change. Thus, while board oversight and incentive
pay may have been substitutes during the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. Rediker & Seth
1995), the way in which incentive pay (in particular stock options) are used has
dramatically change since then. As CEOs and other top managers have learned
how to use incentive schemes in their own interest, stock options have changed
from being an instrument of governance to becoming a source of agency costs
(cf. Boyer 2005). This temporal contingency may explain why recent studies
contrary to earlier ones find complementary relationships between board
independence and activity and the effective use of incentive schemes
(Rurtherford & Buchholtz 2007). In a situation where incentive pay schemes are
considered as a potential source of agency costs, boards will be wary to not use
them as a substitute for oversight, but rather monitor their use closely. More
generally, governance-related problems evolve over time and standards and
expectations change. What was considered good corporate governance in the
mid-1990s may be considered mediocre CG at best in 2012.
14

A fourth claim derived from the bundles perspective is that, CG practices vary
not only in terms of specific combinations that exist, but also in terms of the
intensity of these practices. This could be termed the degrees of
implementation claim. Thus, companies may choose only to partially enforce a
given CG mechanism, to comply only symbolically, or even to resist the
adoption of a legally/regulatory required practice (Aguilera et al. 2012). Thus,
two companies may have the same number of independent board members, but
the definition of independence may vary considerably between the two. 14 This
claim is not directly related to the idea of bundles, but derives from insights in
organisation studies regarding partial implementation of organisational
practices. However, it holds important lessons for the bundles approach as well,
because the actual effects of a given bundle may depend not just on
organisational and environmental contingencies, but also on the strength of the
different CG mechanisms that form a bundle themselves.
These four claims of the bundles approach, have far-reaching implications
for the notion of best practice in corporate governance. Indeed, whether a
given practice can be considered best practice may depend on the presence,
absence, or strength of another practice. The next section turns to explore what
implications this has for corporate governance indices and the definition of
good CG.

4. Applying the bundles approach to CG index construction

Few previous attempts to create meaningful measures of firm-level CG have
taken into account insights from the bundles perspective. Different authors
acknowledge the importance of interaction effects between CG practices
(Bhagat et al. 2008; Larcker et al. 2007), but they either seek to avoid the
problem by using simpler measure or by choosing downstream
methodological solutions to deal with it. One notable exception is Bebchuk and
Hamdani (2009). As mentioned above, they argue that two different CG indices
are required to measure the quality of CG of widely-held companies and in
companies with controlling shareholders.
However, while the contingency of CG mechanisms on ownership structures is
certainly a very important one. Indeed, the distinction between the principalagent problem in widely-held firms and the principal-principal problem in firms
with blockholders is increasingly acknowledged and well understood in the
literature, notably in emerging markets where blockholding is dominant (cf. e.g.
Peng & Jiang 2009). Yet, the scholarly attention to the difference between
closely-held companies and widely-held ones does not provide a sufficient
justification why this particular contingency should be more important than
other contingencies. Thus, it could be argued that industry differences or
15

differences in size may affect the effect of CG mechanisms in quite similar

ways than ownership, even though they are currently less well-researched than
ownership-related contingencies (cf. Aguilera et al. 2012). To give but one
example, Bebchuk and Hamdani (2009: 1304) argue that CG mechanisms that
aim at controlling the power of CEOs (such as the separation of CEO and BoD
chairman) are less relevant for companies with controlling shareholder, because
in such cases the CEO may be monitored directly by the controlling
shareholder. However, other systems may achieve the same goal of keeping in
check the CEO through other means than blockholder monitoring. Thus, in
Germany, dual board structure and other features of the corporate structure
aiming at diluting the CEOs power, create certain counter powers to the CEO
(e.g. employee representation on the supervisory board), which reduce CEO
power independently of the existence of a blockholder. In this respect, dual
board structure and co-determination could hence be seen as a functional
equivalent to blockholding, which a measure of CG should take into account.
More fundamentally, Bebchuk and Hamdanis (2009) conclusion, that it is
impossible to construct a single composite measure of CG, is based on the
confusion of two different aspects of CG research, the normative one and the
analytical one (cf. Donaldson 2012). It seems indeed likely that, due to the
existence of contingencies and interaction effects between CG mechanisms,
there is more than one best way of governing a widely-held and closely-held
firm. From a prescriptive standpoint it may hence be impossible to define a
single set of best practices, as Bebchuk and Hamdani (2009) acknowledge.
Yet, this does not imply that it is impossible to develop a single analytical
measure of CG that can account for such differences. Indeed, rather than
creating indices for each specific contingency, a more general approach is
needed that allows us to create indicators that can handle contingency effects,
functional equivalence, equifinality, interaction effects, and the problem of
degrees of implementation. The next paragraphs attempt to start providing ways
in which this task could be achieved.
Dealing with bundles: Capturing interaction effects, functional equivalence,
and equifinality
Two ways to deal with the main claims of the bundles approach regarding
interaction effects and functional equivalence can be identified. One is
empirical, the other is theoretical.
Firstly, the empirical solution is to choose the research design in a way that
minimises the risk of missing interactions between corporate governance
mechanisms. In configurational research, different methods have been used to
account for interaction effects. For instance, researchers have simply added twoways or three-ways interaction terms to linear regression models or used a
theoretically informed ideal typical configuration to calculate deviation
16

scores (cf. Fiss 2007). Also inductive research approaches, such as cluster- or
principal component analysis, can be used to identifying CG bundles (see
Jackson & Miyajima 2007b; Larcker et al. 2007). Finally, explicitly
configurational methods such as crisp set or fuzzy set qualitative comparative
analysis (QCA) constitute promising approaches to identify configurations of
CG mechanisms (Fiss 2007). All these methods of dealing with interaction
effects have advantages and shortcomings (cf. Fiss 2007 for a discussion).
Nevertheless, using any of these methods implies at the stage of data collection
and definition that the net should be cast wider rather than narrower when
measuring firm-level CG. In other words, we need to define measures that err
at least in a first step on the side of including too many items rather than too
few. This is in contradiction with the above-mentioned kitchen-sink criticism.
Secondly, a more theoretically grounded way of accounting for bundles is to
rely on different comparative- and country case studies that investigate CG
arrangements in detail. Indeed, studies on national corporate governance
systems have developed quite precise understandings of how different parts of a
corporate governance system relate to each other. While we may indeed lack a
universal, formal theory of how CG mechanisms relate to each other at the firm
level, there are studies about how different types of national CG systems work
and how their different dimensions (e.g. employee participation and finance)
relate to each other (cf. Weimar & Pappe 1999; Aoki & Jackson 2008; Gospel
& Pendelton 2003). Such studies can be used as mid-range theories or
heuristics, which allow us to identify important CG mechanisms a priori.
This will in turn allow researchers not only to decide which variables should be
included in a measure of CG practices, but also to hypothesise what interactions
may exist.
Such interactions are particularly well-research for the Anglo-Saxon
shareholder model of CG. It is generally accepted that the Anglo-Saxon model
relies on interactions between managerial incentive pay, oversight by
independent boards, the market for corporate control, high levels of
transparency in accounting and external auditing (Aoki & Jackson 2008, Hart
1995). Theoretically, this system is explained with reference to agency theory
(cf. Ward et al. 2009; Heinrich 2002, Harris & Raviv 2006, Hermalin &
Weisbach 1999). However, in other countries the precepts of agency theory may
be inaccurate for characterising actors behaviour (Lubatkin et al. 2005).
Nevertheless, the agency perspective has become the dominant approach, so
that the very definition of relevant corporate governance variables is usually
based on this perspective. The focus on the presence or absence of a market for
corporate control and anti-takeover measures for instance reflects this. Indeed,
these dimensions may be meaningless in other countries where the market for
corporate control is absent or plays a very different role than in the US (cf.
17

Jackson & Miyajima 2007a). Implicitly or indeed explicitly (cf. Aggarwal et

al. 2008) benchmarking firm-level corporate governance standards against a
shareholder-orientated model may lead researchers to neglect CG mechanisms
that are functionally equivalent to board oversight or hostile takeovers, but not
important in the Anglo-Saxon system.15
For other countries and national models, the interactions between different
mechanisms are not yet as well understood. Nevertheless, it is possible to
identify certain interactions based on existing studies. Thus, it is wellestablished that the ideal typical insider system of the Germanic model,
combines different forms of insider control e.g. through blockholding or
voting right distortions with opaque and sometimes inexistent accounting
rules. This situation granted insiders large autonomy over the use of the profits
generated (Hpner 2003). Yet, other countries that are usually associated with
insider corporate governance, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, traditionally
combined strong insider control and the absence of markets for corporate
control with relatively transparent accounting standards (cf. Schnyder 2012).
These countries seem hence to have a different type of complementarity
between accounting rules and insider control than the Germanic countries.
This has different implications for index construction. For one, country studies
need to be used to identify what functional equivalent mechanisms may exist to
the typical Anglo-Saxon takeover-incentives- board oversight triangle (if the
Anglo-Saxon model were indeed to be used as the benchmark). Also, one might
argue that a comparative CG index will have to weight different mechanisms
according to their importance in a given countrys CG model. Thus, given that
transparency was traditionally relatively high in the Netherlands (at least
compared to other continental European countries), but shareholders still had
few rights, the adoption of international accounting standards by firms in such
countries is less costly than for, say, German, Swiss or Austrian firms.
Conversely, anti-takeover mechanisms were for a long time the most important
instruments of insider control in Dutch firms notably because ownership is
relatively dispersed (de Jong et al. 2005). In other European countries, such as
Switzerland, on the other hand, the abolishing of anti-takeover provisions is less
consequential, because insiders hold relatively large stakes, which implies that
abolishing takeover protections does not automatically lead to a loss of control
(Schnyder 2012). Abolishing such mechanisms is hence highly significant of a
strong pro-shareholder orientation in the Dutch case, but much less so in
Switzerland. Indeed, Bebchuk and Hamdani (2009: 1288) consider that in the
case of firms with controlling shareholders the absence of anti-takeover
provisions is neither good nor bad, but simply irrelevant. The corresponding
variables of a CG index should be weighted accordingly.

18

These examples show that the equifinality claim constitutes a particularly

important problem for comparative corporate governance research whose
importance is increasingly acknowledged (Judge 2011, Zattoni & van Ees
2012). Basing the choice of CG variables to be included in an index on midrange theories may not live up to the ideals of a positivist theory. However, it is
a major step forward in terms of identifying functional equivalents and
contingencies. In particular compared to current approaches that make such
choices mainly based on what drives performance (Bebchuk et al. 2009; Brown
& Caylor 2006; Cremers & Mayer 2005) or data availability (Aggarwal et al.
2008).
Dealing with contingency
Taking seriously insights from the bundles approach implies that the question
of contingencies needs to be tackled too. As mentioned above, three different
types can be distinguished: organisational, environmental, and temporal
contingencies.
Dealing with organisational contingencies does not necessarily have to be
done through the measurement of CG. Rather, the research design could be
chosen in order to allow for the identification of bundles depending for instance
on industry-level contingencies. Thus, the sample of firms analysed could be
split according to these possible contingencies and results from either regression
analysis or inductive techniques could then be compared across groups (cf.
Porter & Siggelkow 2008 for an example from strategy research).
The second type of contingencies concerns how the firms external environment
shapes the nature and/or effectiveness of specific corporate governance
mechanisms (see Zattoni & van Ees 2012; Aguilera et al. 2008; Filatotchev
2008). Laws and regulations play an important role in determining what bundles
may (or may not) emerge at the firm level. In order to account for this type of
contingencies, composite measures that distinguish legally required CG
mechanism from others constitute one possible solution. The inclusion of both
legally-required and voluntary dimensions of CG in a composite measure would
capture important information regarding the determinants of firm-level CG
bundles. It would become possible to analyse whether a given bundle is
mainly the result of legal requirements or whether companies complement
legally required practices with voluntary ones. In longitudinal studies, this
would also permit a more fine-grained analysis of the patterns of change, e.g. by
distinguishing firms which simply comply with CG practices as they become
legally required, from firms that adopt best practices that go beyond the
legally required minimum. Finally, from a methodological point of view,
Renders et al. (2010) have shown that distinguishing voluntary from regulatory
19

required practices makes it possible to define appropriate external instrumental

variables, solving thus endogeneity problems in regression analysis based on
CG data.
Different studies already use indicators that contain some legally-induced
variables and others which do not. Yet, this distinction is rarely explicitly
acknowledged, which can lead to flawed conclusions. Thus, one of Aggarwal et
al.s (2008: 3167) main findings is that good CG laws and good CG
practices are complements not substitutes; that is, where laws guarantee highlevels of minority shareholder protection, companies also tend to have more
shareholder-friendly CG practices. However, this finding is based on a measure
of firm-level corporate governance that contains a variable on cumulative
voting (variable 15) and one on calling an extraordinary AGM (variable 32),
which are also part of the La Porta et al.s (1998) Anti-Director Rights Index
(ADRI). Since they use the ADRI to measure the quality of law, it can be hardly
surprising that there is quite a strong correlation between practices and legal
rules given that two of the six ADRI variables have a direct correspondent in the
measure of firm-level CG practices. The choice of including in a measure of
firm-level CG legally-required items should be made explicit and the
conclusions drawn need to be adapted accordingly. In this case, what the
correlation between legal quality and corporate practices shows, may be largely
compliance with legal rules: in countries where the two variables in the ADRI
take positive values most companies will follow the laws and in countries where
they are not legally compulsory most firms do not adopt them. This is obviously
not evidence of a functionally complementary relationship between legal rules
and corporate practices, but at beast a measure of compliance. This illustrates
the importance of using more carefully constructed indices.
The third type of contingencies, temporal contingency, implies that corporate
governance needs to be considered as a moving target and that best practices
change over time. Thus, in the 1980s or early 1990s, hardly any corporate
governance activist demanded that individual remuneration figures for every
member of the top management team of a firm be disclosed, let alone that
claw-back clauses were introduced in the companys charter. At the time,
problems with excessive manger pay were simply not on the radar of
shareholder activists in most countries. In Europe, the early corporate
governance activists in the 1980s and especially the 1990s focused on more
fundamental issues such as adopting international accounting standards (IAS, or
what is now called IFRS), which prohibited the wide-spread practice of creating
hidden reserves. By 2005 the EU had adopted a compulsory IFRS reporting
standard for listed firms. The use of IFRS (or US-GAAP) accounting rules is
hence hardly a meaningful indicator of good corporate governance practices
anymore even though it was a strong indicator of pro-active pro-shareholder
20

practices during the 1990s. Also, a historically informed approach to index

construction based on in-depth knowledge of a given countrys CG system will
allow it to account for such changes over time.16
Dealing with the degrees of implementation claim
The main implication of the degrees of implementation claim is that corporate
governance mechanisms cannot be captured simply by recording the presence or
absence of a given mechanism. Indeed, Aguilera et al. (2012: 380) note that a
practice can be either fully endorsed or the firm can merely comply with
minimum requirements. It is even possible that a firm only comply symbolically
with a given practice or refuses to comply at all. This suggests that CG
mechanisms cannot in all cases be treated purely as a dichotomous variable
(either presence or absence of a given mechanism), but degrees of presence
may be distinguished. One way in which this issue can be addressed is by
coding variables as categorical or continuous ones rather than using simple
dummy variables. Hpner (2003) for instance distinguishes investor relations
(IR) departments that are part of Public Relations from IR departments that
directly report to the CFO, leading to a metric with three levels (0=no IR
department; 1 = IR department as part of public relations; 2 = IR department as
part of finance). Another possibility is, staying with the example of IR, to look
into the number of employees the IR department has as a proxy for how
seriously a given company takes investor relations. This would offer a way of
measuring commitment to IR as a continuous variable, which has the advantage
of overcoming limitations of dichotomous variables also in terms of temporal
contingencies. Indeed, while the variable presence or absence of IR
department produced a great deal of variation in the case of Germany in 1990
(Hpner 2003), by 2000 literally every large German corporation had such a
department. Measuring the size of such departments or using other proxies for
the resources committed to IR, constitutes a way of refining the measurement so
that it remains relevant in a changed context. The problem that remains is how
such continuous variables can then be integrated in a composite measure with
variables that use different scales. Configurational approaches such as fuzzy
sets QCA may provide some solutions for this problem (Fiss 2007).
Each variable of a CG index should hence be examined in view of identifying
ways in which different levels of implementation could be distinguished and
coded.
Limitations and Ways Forward
Put simply, the insights from the bundles approach suggest that we need more
sophisticated measures rather than simpler ones in order to be able to quantify
firm-level CG practices in meaningful ways. Yet, clearly, developing more
21

sophisticated measures also raise new issues or indeed aggravates existing

ones that may make some of the suggestions problematic or impracticable.
Partly, this is inevitable and simply due to the complexity of the task at hand.
Kogut and Ragin (2006:47) state that [t]he logic of complementarities and
configurational analysis is confronted with an irreducible problem of causal
complexity. This extends to metrics to be used in configurational analysis.
However, different ways forward exist to address at least some of the problems
related to complexity. Two promising approaches are modular indices and
contingent indicies, which I briefly review here.
As I argued above one of the problems of existing indicators is that they include
non-correlated variables in a single index. This problem, is possibly further
increased with the approach suggested in this paper. Indeed, casting the net
wider is likely to lead to a situation where many variables do not strongly
correlate. How to deal with this problem? Certain precautions would have to be
taken to make the index statistically sound. As an example, Myajima (2007)
constructs a measure of CG for Japanese firms, which is the sum of three subindicators measuring shareholder protection practices, separation of the
management and monitoring roles of the board, and transparency.17 Myajima
(2007: 338) finds that while the shareholder protection sub-index and the
disclosure index are relatively strongly correlated (.41), the two other pairwise
correlations are relatively weak (CGSds x CGSbr = .26; CGSsh x CGSbr = .18).
Myajima (2007) interprets this as a sign that the different aspects of corporate
governance were implemented by Japanese firms quite independently of each
other. This raises important issues regarding the validity of the overall
composite measure that is simply the average of the three sub-indicators.
Moreover, neither the equal weighting of items in each sub-index, nor the equal
contribution of each sub-index to the final CGS are theoretically justified. One
could argue that minority shareholder protection through increasing shareholder
rights during the AGM (sub-index 1) may be more consequential than the third
sub-index (transparency) and should hence be weighted accordingly (cf.
Bebchuk et al. 2009). While Myajima does not discuss these important issues,
the merit of his approach is clearly to distinguish different sub-indicators which
are theoretically and conceptually plausible and allow it to have a coherence of
variables within sub-indicators, even if the sub-indicators are not correlated.
Such a modular approach, distinguishing different sub-indicators based on our
knowledge of CG is an important step in the direction of creating more reliable
measures. It also has the advantage of allowing it to use only those subindicators that are most relevant for a given research question.
Another recent attempt to develop more reliable CG measures is a study by
Ferreira et al. (2012), which proposes an indicator for bank governance in the
US that accounts both for contingencies and the problem of equifinality. The
22

paper constructs a contingent index of management insulation (MII), which

aims at measuring [] the degree of mangers exposure to potential strategic
intervention by activist shareholders (Ferreira et al. 2012: 5). They
acknowledge explicitly the existence of interaction effects, whereby the
functioning/effectiveness of a given shareholder right may depend on the
presence or absence of others rights. The outcome of interest to their research
question is the ease with which shareholders can take control over the bank
board. Different corporate governance mechanisms are relevant to this question:
Whether the board is staggered or not, whether shareholders have the right to
call an extraordinary general meeting or to act by written consent, what rules for
the nomination and removal of directors apply and whether shareholders have
the right to declassify the board and/or increase its size.
Depending on the combination of these various rights, shareholders can take
control of the board almost immediately, or it can take up to two years to do so.
Depending on the length of time that it takes to gain control and how costly this
process is, Ferreira et al. (2012) attribute scores from 1 to 6 with higher scores
indicating stronger insulation of managers from shareholder activism.
This approach remedies major shortcomings of existing indicators notably in
terms of equifinality and functional equivalence. Thus, they show that there are
different paths for a bank to reach low scores on the MII, which indicates the
possibility of almost immediate removal of directors. This outcome is most
easily achieved in companies without staggered boards. However, even in
companies with staggered boards, there are various ways around the
classification and removal can hence be quick. Shareholders may have the right
to call an extraordinary shareholder meeting (EGM), to remove directors
without cause, to declassify the board, or they may have the possibility to
increase the board size and thus add new directors in order to outnumber the
insiders. The ease with which these ways around staggered boards can be used
depends among other factors on the source of these rules, i.e. whether they are
legal rules, rules specified in the charter (which can only be amended with BoD
approval), or in the bylaws (which may in many cases be changed by a
shareholder vote without BoD approval). The rules for changing these different
types of rules vary considerably and can make it more or less costly for
shareholders to gain control of the board. The MI index takes into account all
these contingencies.
To be sure, this index also has limitations, notably that it is deliberately a
measure of management entrenchment not a general shareholder rights index
(Fereirra et al. 2012: 6). However, the way in which equifinal paths to manager
entrenchment are measured constitutes a promising first step that could be
applied to other aspects of corporate governance such as disclosure, pay, and
ownership structures.
23

5. Conclusion: New Venues for Research Based on New Measures

This paper reviewed different recent attempts in the literature to assess the
quality of commercial and academic firm-level corporate governance measures.
I showed that the most common solution to improve existing measures is to
create simpler indices that are composed of variables which strongly correlate
with the outcome of interest or indeed use just the variable which most strongly
correlates with these outcomes. Based on four main claims from the bundles
approach, I argued that this solution has severe shortcomings in particular for
comparative corporate governance research. The paper sought to discuss the
major implications of the bundles approach for the way in which we measure
CG at the firm level and across countries.
The main argument was that it seems unlikely that ever simpler measures for
firm-level corporate governance are able to account for the complex and
multiple interactions that exist between corporate governance mechanisms and
between these and environmental factors. Indeed, for comparative corporate
governance research, simplistic measures of corporate governance practices are
likely to fail to contain sufficient information in order to capture functional
equivalents and equifinal paths to effective governance.
Bebchuk et al. (2009: 823-4) are certainly right to caution against a tendency to
construct ever larger indices. However, in this paper I argue that the optimal
size of a corporate governance index should be theoretically informed and will
depend on the research question at hand. For instance, if we are interested in
explaining the impact of institutional factors on changes in corporate
governance practices across a certain number of countries, the CG measure we
might require may be substantially more encompassing than a 6-variable index.
Indeed, given that some corporate governance characteristics seem to matter
only in combination with others, limiting the number of included variables too
quickly may indeed lead us to lose important information. Therefore, while
striving for parsimony is obviously a crucial concern, we should make a
balanced and careful judgement of how much variety is required. In other
words, we should not forget that things should be kept as simple as possible, but
not simpler.
The task at hand is complex and poses different challenges. However, besides
creating theoretically sounder measures, composite corporate governance
measures based on insights from the bundles approach, taking into account
contingencies, functional equivalents and degrees of implementation, will also
constitute an important step towards linking the firm- and the national,
institutional level, thus contributing to closing the macro-micro gap in CG
24

research between national institutional environments and organisation-level

characteristics (cf. Minichilli et al. 2012).

25

Notes
1

To be sure, the definition of good corporate governance is subject to debate

and indeed ultimately a moral question (see Donaldson 2012). Nevertheless, the
aim of CG indices is to measure the quality of CG in relation to some metric of
organisational performance. While Donaldson (2012) considers that CG
theories are by definition normative/prescriptive rather than positive theories, it
is conceivable to develop a positive theory of CG, which focuses on description
and prediction rather than prescription.
2

See Larcker et al. 2007 for a critique of some of the methodological solutions
that are suggested in the literature, notably the use of instrumental variables.
3

Following continuous consolidation in the industry, several of the rating

providers included in Daines and colleagues study have since merged and
combined their methodologies. Thus, in 2007 RiskMetrics has taken over ISS
which led to changes to the CGQ methodology. In June 2010, the
RiskMetrics/ISS CGQ methodology has been discontinued and replaced by a
new methodology called Governance Risk Indicators (GRId). Partly, this was
a reaction to continuous criticisms notably regarding conflicts of interests due to
cross-selling of rating and consultancy services and the transparency of the
method. In 2010 RiskMetrics was acquired by MSCI Group. That same year,
The Corporate Library, GovernanceMetrics International and Audit Integrity
merged into GMI Ratings. Some of the existing methodologies were kept after
the merger (notably Audit Integritys AGR) others were integrated into a new
ESG rating system called GMI Analyst. While this has led to some changes to
the methodologies used, these changes do not constitute a radically new
approach. Regarding the new GRId rating system for instance, one leading law
firm using these data considered that [t]hese are for the most part changes in
packaging
and
presentation
rather
than
in
substance
(cf.
http://www.davispolk.com/files/publication/a90817ff-5d77-4153-9121/).
Therefore, the criticisms and analyses made in the review papers included in
this literature review still apply.

26

Theoretically, most of the existing literature expects good CG will increase

performance related to a firms valuation, i.e. stock returns, shareholder value,
Tobins Q or share price, because investors are ready to pay a premium for
stocks of companies that credibly commit to respecting shareholders rights.
The theoretical impact that good CG has on operational performance most
commonly measured as return on assets (RoA) , on the other hand, is more
difficult to establish. Here it is usually assumed that good CG leads to better
performance due to the choice of shareholder-orientated strategies, which are
assumed to be the most efficient ones, because they minimise capital costs and
increase profitability (Rappaport 1986). A third type of DVs in CG research are
measures of managerial misbehaviour and its punishment by shareholders, e.g.
earnings restatements, litigation against the company, or non-routine CEO
turnover. Here good CG is expected to impact the DV by increasing the
shareholders power effectively to monitor managers and hence punish
misbehaviours.
5

Both correlations are significant. The coefficient is negative because Brown

and Caylors (2006) index measures good CG, whereas the G-Index (like the
E-Index) measures managerial entrenchement.
6

The six variables of the E-index are: i) staggered boards, ii) limits to
shareholder bylaw amendments, iii) poison pills, iv) golden parachutes, v)
supermajority requirements for mergers, vi) supermajority requirements for
charter amendments.
7

A similar point is made by Kogut (2012: 11) who criticises the existing CG
literature for equating good governance with ease by which the practices
permit the company to be taken over, which may partly explain why the link
between CG and firm value is elusvive: [D]uring acquisition waves, the
premium goes up, and during market turndowns, the premium goes down.
8

It should be noted, however, that this variable shows a significant negative

relationships with operating performance, which goes against their theoretical
expectation.
9

Their privileged variable is the dollar value of the independent directors

median shareholdings.

27

10

One striking example of such tautological reasoning comes from Aggarwal et

al. (2008: 3132) who set out to investigate whether differences in firm-level
governance between foreign firms and comparable U.S. firms have implications
for the valuation of foreign firms using their own GOV Index based on ISS
data. They extract from the ISS dataset those variables that are available for
both US and non-US firms and state that one can reasonably disagree both with
the governance attributes ISS focuses on and with the index we compute. []
However, if the index were to convey no information, we would simply find
that the index we use is not related to firm value. This implies that the link
between corporate governance measure and firm performance is proof that the
CG measure includes the right mechanisms. In other words, the link between
corporate governance and firm value is both the research question and the main
criteria defining the composition of the corporate governance measure.
11

Some scholars, such as Hpner (2003), do take such methodologically

considerations seriously and apply a more rigorous stance by including only
variables, which strongly correlated.
12

Among the few attempts to formalize CG theory are Harris & Raviv 2008,
Hermalin & Weisbach 1998 and Heinrich 2002.
13

The idea of complementarities and bundles of practices has developed much

earlier in human resource management research and partly in strategy and
has become widely accepted in these domains (see Guest 1997).

14

This is true also for the definition of independence in CG ratings. For

instance, the NYSEs definition of independence which is also used by
RiskMetrics is criticised by some shareholder activists such as the UK pension
fund consulting firm PIRC who have developed their own stricter definition
of independence (personal communication with Adam Rose, PIRC).
15

A similar problem exists regarding measures of corporate governance at the

level of legal rules. The most commonly used methodology (LLSV 1998) has
been criticised for neglecting context-specific functional equivalent rules that
achieve similar goals of minority shareholder protection in different contexts
(see Armour et al. 2009; Lele & Siems 2007).
16

Commercial providers generally do change the composition of their indicators

to take into account changes over time.

28

17

Two of Myajimas (2007) sub-indices (MS and transparency) summarise 10

survey items, one 6 items. For each sub-index the variables are summed up. The
sub-index scores are then divided by the number of variables in each index
(missing variables are excluded) and multiplied by 100/3 in order to equalize
the weighting of each sub-index. The sum of these three sub-indices constitute
the final Corporate Governance Scores (CGS), which takes values between 0
and 100 (Myajima 2007: 336).

29

References
Aggarwal, R., I. Erel, et al. (2008). Differences in Governance Practices
between U.S. and Foreign Firms: Measurement, Causes, and
Consequences. The Review of Financial Studies 22(9): 3131-3169.
Aguilera, R. V., K. A. Desender, et al. (2012). A Bundle Perspective to
Comparative Corporate Governance. The Sage Handbook of Corporate
Governance. T. Clarke. London, Sage Publications: 380-405.
Aguilera, R. V., I. Filatotchev, et al. (2008). An Organizational Approach to
Comparative Corporate Governance: Costs, Contingencies and
Complementarities. Organization Science 19(3): 475-492.
Aguilera, R. V. and G. Jackson (2010). Comparative and International
Corporate Governance. Academy of Management Annals 4: 485-556.
Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge MA,
MIT Press.
Aoki, M. and G. Jackson (2008). Understanding an Emerging Diversity of
Corporate Governance and Organizational Architecture: An EssentiallyBased Analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change 17(1): 1-27.
Armour, J., S. Deakin, et al. (2009). Shareholder protection and stock market
development: An empirical test of the legal origins hypothesis. Journal
of Empirical Legal Studies 6: 343380.
Bebchuk, L. A., A. Cohen, et al. (2009). What Matters in Corporate
Governance? Review of Financial Studies 22(2).
Bebchuk, L. A. and A. Hamdani (2009). The Elusive Quest for Global
Governance Standards. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 157(5):
1263-1317.

30

Bhagat, S., B. Bolton, et al. (2008). The Promise and Peril of Corporate
Governance Indices. Columbia Law Review 108(8): 1803 - 1882.
Bhagat, S., B. Bolton, et al. (2008). The Promise and Peril of Corporate
Governance Indices. Working Paper:1- 85.
Boyer, R. (2005). From Shareholder Value to CEO Power: the Paradox of the
1990s. Competition & Change 9(1): 7-47.
Brown, L. D. and M. L. Caylor (2006). Corporate Governance and Firm
Valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 25(4): 409-434.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and
applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 98-104.
Cremers, K. J. M. and V. B. Nair (2005). Governance Mechanisms and Equity
Prices. Journal of Finance 60(6): 2859-2894.
Daines, R. M., I. D. Gow, et al. (2010). Rating the ratings: How good are
commercial governance ratings? Journal of Financial Economics 98:
439-461.
de Jong, A. and A. Rell (2005). Financing and Control in The Netherlands. A
History of Corporate Governance around the World. R. K. Morck.
Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press: 467-506.
Donaldson, T. (2012). The Epistemic Fault Line in Corporate Governance.
Academy of Management Review 37(2): 256-271.
Ferreira, D., D. Kershaw, et al. (2012). Shareholder Empowerment and Bank
Bailouts. AXA Working Paper Series 11: 1-47.

31

Filatotchev, I. (2008). Developing an organizational theory of corporate

governance: Comments on Henry L. Tosi, Jr. (2008) Quo Vadis?
Suggestions for future corporate governace research. Journal of
Management and Governance 12: 171-178.
Filatotchev, I. and M. Wright (2005). The Life Cycle of Corporate Governance.
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Fiss,

P. C. (2007). A Set-Theoretic Approach to Organizational

Configurations. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1180-1198.

Friedman, M. (1966[1953]). The Methodology of Positive Economics. Essays

in Positive Economics. M. Friedman. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press: 3-43.
Gillan, S. L., J. C. Hartzell, et al. (2011). Tradeoffs in Corporate Governance:
Evidence from Board Structures and Charter Provisions. Quarterly
Journal of Finance 1(4): 667-705.
Gompers, P., J. Ishii, et al. (2003). Corporate Governance and Equity Prices.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 107-155.
Gospel, H. and A. Pendleton (2003). Finance, Corporate Governance and the
Management of Labour: A Conceptual and Comparative Analysis.
British Journal of Industrial Relations 41(3): 557-582.
Gourevitch, P. A. and J. Shinn (2005). Political Power & Corporate Control.
The New Global Politics of Corporate Governance. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review
and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource
Management 8(3): 263-276.
Harris, M. and A. Raviv (2008). A Theory of Board Control and Size. Review
of Financial Studies 21(4): 1797-1832.
32

Hart, O. (1995). Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure. Oxford, Clarendon

Press.
Heinrich, R. P. (2002). Complementarities in Corporate Governance. Berlin,
Springer.
Hermalin, B. and M. Weisbach (1998). Endogenously chosen boards of
directors and their monitoring the CEO. American Economic Review 88:
96-118.
Hoi, C.-K. and A. Robin (2010). Agency Conflicts, Controlling Owner
Proximity, and Firm Value: An Analysis of Dual-Class Firms in the US.
Corporate Governance: An International Review 18 (2): 124-135.
Hpner, M. (2003). Wer beherrscht die Unternehmen? Shareholder Value,
Managerherrschaft und Mitbestimmung in Deutschland. Frankfurt / New
York, Campus.
Jackson, G. and H. Miyajima (2007a). Varieties of Capitalism, Varieties of
Markets: Mergers and Acquisitions in Japan, Germany, France, the UK
and USA. RIETI Discussion Paper(07-E-054).
Jackson, G. and Miyajima (2007b). Introduction: The Diversity and Change of
Corporate Governance in Japan. Corporate Governance in Japan:
Institutional Change and Organizational Diversity. M. Aoki, G. Jackson
and H. Miyajima. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 1-47.
Judge, W. (2011). What Level of Analysis is Most Salient for a Global Theory
of Corporate Governance? Corporate Governance: An International
Review 19(2): 97-98.
Judge, W. (2010). Ruminations on financial efficiency and social legitimacy.
Corporate Governance: An International Review 18: 1-2.

33

Khanna, T. and K. G. Palepu (2004). Globalization and Convergence in

Corporate Governance: Evidence from Infosys and the Indian Software
Industry. Journal of International Business Studies 35(6): 484-507.
Kogut, B. (2012). The Small World of Corporate Governance: An Introduction.
The Small Worlds of Corporate Governance. B. Kogut. Cambridge, MA,
MIT Press: 1-51.
Kogut, B. and C. C. Ragin (2006). Exploring complexity when diversity is
limited: institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and
national systems revisited. European Management Review (3): 44-59.
La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, et al. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of
Political Economy 106(6): 1113-1155.
Larcker, D. F., B. J. Richardson, et al. (2007). Corporate Governance,
Accounting Outcomes, and Organization Performance. Accounting
Review 82(4): 963-1008.
Lele, P. and M. Siems (2007). Shareholder Protection: A Leximetric
Approach. Journal of Corporate Law Studies 7(I): 17-50.
Lubatkin, M. H., P. J. Lane, et al. (2005). Origins of Corporate Governance in
the USA, Sweden and France. Organization Studies 26(6): 867-888.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1995). Complementarities and fit. Strategy,
structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of
Accounting & Economics 19(2-3): 179-208.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing:
Technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review
80(3): 511-528.
Minichilli, A., A. Zattoni, et al. (2012). Board task performance: An
exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board
effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 33: 193-215.
34

Miyajima, H. (2007). The Performance Effects and Determinants of Corporate

Governance Reform. Corporate Governance in Japan: Institutional
Change and Organizational Diversity. M. Aoki, G. Jackson and H.
Miyajima. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 330-369.
Peng, M. W. and Y. Jiang (2009). Institutions Behind Family Ownership and
Control in Large Firms. Journal of Management Studies 47(2): 253-273.
Porter, M. and N. Siggelkow (2008). Contextuality Within Activity Systems
and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management
Perspectives 22(2): 34-56.
Rappaport, A. (1986). Creating Shareholder Value. The New Standard for
Business Performance. New York, The Free Press.
Rediker, K. J. and A. Seth (1995). Boards of Directors and Substitution Effects
of Alternative Governance Mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal
16(2): 85-99.
Renders, A., A. Gaeremynck, et al. (2010). Corporate-Governance Ratings and
Company Performance: A Cross-European Study. Corporate
Governance: An International Review 18(2): 87-106.
Roe, M. J. (1994). Strong Managers, Weak Owners. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Rutherford, M. A. and A. K. Buchholtz (2007). Investigating the Relationship
Between Board Characteristics and Board Information. Corporate
Governance: An International Review 15(4): 576-584.
Rutherford, M. A., A. K. Buchholtz, et al. (2007). Examining the Relationships
Between Monitoring and Incentives in Corporate Governance. Journal
of Management Studies 44(3): 414-430.

35

Schnyder, G. (2012). Varieties of Insider Corporate Governance: the

determinants of business preferences and govenrance reform in the
Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland. Journal of European Public
Policy 19(9): 1434-1451.
Tosi, H. L., J. P. Katz, et al. (1997). Disaggregating the agency contract: The
effects of monitoring, incentive alignment, and term in office on agent
decision making. Academy of Management Journal 40: 584-602.
Ward, A. J., J. A. Brown, et al. (2009). Governance Bundles, Firm
Performance, and the Substitutability and Complementarity of
Governance Mechanisms. Corporate Governance: An International
Review 17(5): 646-660.
Weimar, J. and J. Pappe (1999). A Taxonomy of Systems of Corporate
Governance. Corporate Governance. An International Review 7(2): 152165.
Westphal, J. D. and E. J. Zajac (1994). Substance and Symbolism in CEOs'
Long-term Incentive Plans. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 367390.
Zattoni, A. and H. Van Ees (2012). How to Contribute to the Development of a
Global Understanding of Corporate Governance? Reflections from
Submitted and Published Articles in CGIR. Corporate Governance: An
International Review 20(1): 106-118.

36

37